Skip to main content

tv   Charlie Rose  PBS  November 18, 2011 11:00pm-12:00am PST

11:00 pm
>> rose: welcome to our program, tonight all about iran and their perspective on ents in the middle east and the world. we talk to mohammed javad larijani head of iran's human rights council and advisor to the supreme leader and from one of the most powerful families in that country. whether this sanctio hurt iran's economy, yes, it has its effect. it's obvious. but if you think that this will bring our economy down, definitely no, definitely no. >> rose: dow fear an attack by the israelis. >> not at all. >> rose: you don't fear it, do you believe it might me? >> we don't believe it, but we are ready for it. >> rose: and what would you do if it comes. >> oh, we are very rong i
11:01 pm
defendg ourselves. >> ros what woulyou do. >> well d is very hard to say right now. >> rose: mohammed-jaff ard-- javad larijani next. funding focharlie rose is provided by the folwing: .
11:02 pm
>> from our studios in new york city this is charlie rosee begin this evening with iran t has been in the news again, over its dispute nud clear program this month. the international atomic energy agency said it had credible information that iran had carried out activities relative to the development of a new clear explosive device. iran has rejected the findings and insist its program is peaceful. the report intensified the debate over iran. joining me is mohammad javad larijani head of the human rights colin in judiciary and close advisor to the supreme leader ayatollah
11:03 pm
khamenei, i'm pleased to have him back at the table. welcome. >> thank you. very glad to meet you. >> i want to first talk about the nuclear issue. the iaea says it has credible information gathered it from iranian documents and other sources including russian scientists that suggest tre is ongoing activities to develop an explosive device. >> well, as iran explained before, the evidence cited by the agency is an old laptop gathering of different pieces which none of them could be considered a document in the ofessional sense. and four years ago it has been put to iran the agency and iran explained in detail. and it was considered by the
11:04 pm
agency a acceptable answer. but it is interesting that the whole thing again has been revived. >> rose: they're saying these are new documents and there is new information here, not old information. >> well, information and documents, they have professional meaning in the agencies vocabulary. anybody could pass on the information. but the agency shouldreate documents. countries can claim a lot of things against each other. no single document in the professional sense of the agency indicates that ira is leading or was a tmen tment-- attempting to build a bomb. this is absolutely true. >> but they read it differently. the iaea reads it differently. and they say there is. >> well, in fact, the agency has plenty of difficult times to convince others that his argument is
11:05 pm
relevant. while suspicion is blown in this case. and a lot of interest. let me get to the crux of the matter. the united states of america with a number of cntries in europe, they are spearheading a wave of facility and pressure on iran. they use-- . >> rose: they make no question abo that, that th are imposing sanctions as much as they can. they are trying to get other governments including the chinese government to restrict their trade and commerce with iran. that's a clear u.s. policy. >> well, i just wanted to make a point that as far as our nuclear energy program is concerned, nothing new is happing. this is th old and the ongoing thrive of iran to develop its nuclear
11:06 pm
technology for a variety of uses, none of them are military. it is open to the inspection. the agency already visited several times iran. the cameras are there. this is one issue. the other issue,ow to make it a vehicle of pressure on iran. which is, unfortunately, is using this u.n. mechanism quite often. >> rose: is it in your interest to convince the iaea and the united nations and the united states and other countries, including russia and china that you do not have a program. >> well, definitely. i mean negative proves are usually more difficult than pros difficult proves. positive proves, you just show that you have it. but negative proves is impossib sometimes to tell them why you don't have it. in an interview, a gentleman asked me why are you not opening all the country for
11:07 pm
the inspection. what it means for such a vast country. as a joke i said well, they can start with my bedroom. >> rose: they don't want to go to your bedroom. they want to go to certain sites that they would like to look at. >> what. >> rose: and they've asked permission again. the doctor has asked permission to come back with a group of people from iaea. is it in your interest. >> well, definitely. but ifhey want to --. >> rose: but he hasn't been invited. >> so the point is that when they claim that they want to visit that site, they should at least justify it for us. but why th want to visit, they should give justification that we are also suspicious of the activities of the agencies. so-- . >> rose: are you suspicious of the iaea. >> oh definitel there is no confidentiality in the works of this agency. >> rose: you don't have confidence. >> confidentiality. >> rose: in other words, its information they have is not confidential. >> they can leak it to everywhere.
11:08 pm
so the same way that they've done it before. and so we should have justification. they cannot justross their fing and say well, okay, i want to visit this point. they should give us justification and notification. >> rose: they want to look at these sites. >> they cite information that they have gotten from others, nev releasing that information to us. if they don't release the information to us, it doesn't have any value for us. >> rose: so it would be sufficient to you if they would show you the information they have. >> exactly, yes. >> rose: and then you might allow them to come. >> oh, definitely. >> rose: if they show you its information they have about your activities, you will invite them to come. >> yes, definitely. >> rose: the other question that comes up is this meeting that is going to take place and a vote that is going to happen. clearly there are not going to be more sanctions because the russians and chinese said no, russians said no, chinese said they are abstain. there is a vote in the security colin. there is also-- to put on more sanctions. there is also a vote to
11:09 pm
express deep and increasing concern. and that seems to reflect a growing-growing opinion. >> well, growing opinion is not with the baroter of security counl. in the agency itself all the nonaligned movement is taken very openly, very clearly that they aren't happy with that. they are not satisfied with the level of acquisition. they consider iranian effort, a safe effort. do if the number counts, i will say with confidence that the majority of countries in the world, they do not share the united states position. >> rose: it's not just the united states. it's western europe as well. >> that's true but the word is not the west. and the rest-- i mean, i want to say that if you are talking about the world opinion, we do have its world opinion with us.
11:10 pm
en i it isnot translated in the decision of the security council. >> rose: dow believe the world opinion is that it does n want to see iran develop a nuclear weapon. >> including iran itself. >> rose: exactly, including iran does not want to see iran -- >> yes. >> rose: so the question of world opinion is whether iran has a program or no >> exactly rses a clear, focused ongoing program. >> yeah. >> rose: to develop a nuclear weapon. >> yeah. >> rose: was there a program that stopp in 2003. >> no, this is-- well, this is absolutely not correct. we were happy to hear that because partially they considered the american intelligence, the considered that iran-- from tha time on, doesn't continue that. but evenefore that, we never had that program. well, i mean our activity is so open. and-- .
11:11 pm
>> rose: clearly you know better than that. it's not open. >> it's quite open. >> rose: it was hidden. and you acknowledged it was hidden. >> . >> rose: there were aspects of the enrichment that were not disclosed and it only came out because you finally acknowledged it to the surprise of -- >> the point was a difference between the reading the text. whether we should the moment that we put the fuel, the enrichment, we should get the agency to know or the agency said no, from the moment number one, that you decide to do that we should inform us. we were of the belief that-- we are to report to the agency unless we put the uranium in the centrifuge-- based on this idea, which a number of countries they share this with us. that unless before that we should not disclose because before you recharge the
11:12 pm
centrifuge t is just a piece of metal. is is the difference in the semantic of that rule. >> rose: what would u recommend be done in order to show clely that there is no program, yet you have a right and the united states recognizes this, to develop enriched uranium for a peaceful uses including medical. >> how do you get past this distrust and the evidence that the iaea says it has? >> well, the distrust is mutual from both sides at least. i believe sincerely that the united states of america definitely knows that we are not after the weapon. this is my sincere belief. but politically they say something else, but anyhow, let us assume. >> fair enough. >> rose: . >> let use assume that they are suspicious of us and we are suspicious of them. well, let us start to take this, i mean, this, because
11:13 pm
confidence doesn't come overnight. my equation is very simple. one step of transparency from iran, one step of cooperation from the united states. >> rose: okay, what would be a transparency from iran and what would be an example of cooperation from the united states. >> i mean there are plenty of modalities in design. ey cannot ask that everything should be-- because transparency itself is gradual and it has a lot of meaning. corporations, it has a lot of meaning. the more we get confidence that nobody wants to deprive us from technological capability on the nuclear area,the more wwill be forthcoming. because at this mome, whatever we hear is that why iran has this technology at all. >> rose: but so you are acknowledging you have not been forthcoming.
11:14 pm
>> well, no, i don't say that forthcomming in the sense of united states, more than mpt. we think already we have done everything within mpt. >> rose: nonproliferation treaty. >> exactly. >> rose: but let me say it this way. there was at one time this idea that iran could ship its uranium outside and other countries might enrich it and send it back to you for medical uses. is that idea, does it have any possibility of being resurrected? >> yes. in fact this is a good example that you are looking for for the cooperation vis-a-vis the transparency. the whole idea was put by president ahmadinejad. because our fuel for the re-- the reactor in tie ran which has many uses, and ten years ago we bought it from argentina there were several
11:15 pm
proposals. one, sell the fuel to us. >> rose: sell enriched fuel to you. >> yeah, 20% enriched fuel. if they are not-- they said no, we're not going to sell it to you. well this is very bad sign. i mean this is not cooperation. they could sell it to us. secondly, we said okay, sell as much-- . >> rose: why did you need 20%. is that what y thought 20% was necessary rather than 5% enriched. >> this reactor works with 20% w a small amount, 20%. so the second proposal was okay, sell as much as you want to us, and let u us-- ourselves enrich the rest of it. they said no, no, no, you can't enrich more than 5%. >> rose: then came the question of britain and brazil and turkey. >> then the third proposal. okay, sell as much as you want to us, and then let us swap. we give you 5% as much as needed and you give us 20%. well this was the swap idea, which was a good sign for
11:16 pm
cooperation. but all of a sudden united states said no, you should get all of your enrichment, because we want to clean you up. the idea thaif we have 5% uranium then we are dirty and polluted, i think it's very dirty idea by itself. >> rose: there has been an argument i think by graham allison and i want to be clear about this, in which he suggested, you look at this on a football field. and if-- an american football field. and if you are advancing down the field, that iran is about at the 30 yard line and so it's already gone 70 yards, it has 30 yards to go to have a nuclear program. and on explosive devices. anyou only have po to go. and that you can take 20% enriched and over a process of a couple years make it into weapon-grade material. >> well, this is not a good similarity. i mean we are right now, if you ask in terms of real
11:17 pm
world, in the field, we are 100 percent away from this. i mean military use. if you ask intensive capability, hypothetically s iran capable to do tt if he decides, obviouslyes. any country who has nuclear technology is pable of doing that. i mean, the germans can do it in two months. >> rose: the japanese. >> in less than a month. >> rose: is that where you want to be, though? do you want to be exactly where the germans and the japanese are >> we want to be beyond them. because this is capability. >> rose: yeah. but you want to have the same capability that the japanese and the germans do. >> it is a natural outcome. if you are advancing this area of science, then you will acquire this capability. >> rose: but that's an interesting question. you are saying yes, we want to have the same capability that japan and germany has. >> or beyond that we even want to get more sophisticated.
11:18 pm
>> rose: then you want to have the capability that would allow you to, if you cided to take the additional step of making a nuclear advice, happen within months. that's the capacity would you like to have. >> so what? should he be punished because we are advanced. >> rose: no. >> i mean it's like i man who is very, quite, i mean, he has faculty of thinking and then say okay, if you are strong in thinking, you may think in the wrong direction. so close out your thinking. i mean this is natural capacity as a nation. how we should be deplifed of that. i mean is there a limit for uranium for advancement in science and technology. >> rose: you basically say we want the ca passit ot make a nuclear weapon. >> no. >> rose: even though we do not have a program to actually make the weapon. we just want the capacity which is exactly what the japanese have. >> the is not the correct word. >> rose: the ability, the capacity, the meria. >> we wantadvancement in science and chnology related to nuclear area, not
11:19 pm
directly toward the weapon. >> rose: but you want it to be at a level so that it does intenantly -- >> naturally it comes. if you are advanced in being a good machine, then you can make another machine. >> rose:ut then the problem comes in the debate. because there is a great fear of iran having a nuclear weapon as you know because it will destable the region and many other reasoned express and violate the npt. fanned iran vlates the npt so, will other countries, as you well know. they worry about that. do you worry about that? >> oh, not at all. >> rose: you don't worry about that? >> not at all. because the stability in the region is not coming system frick iran. i mean violating npt also is not a big problem for united states. >> rose: would you like to see saudi arabia have a nuclear weapon. would you like to see -- >> nuclear weapon or nuclear technology, two things. >> rose: okay, fair, nuclear weapon, would you like to see saudi arabia.
11:20 pm
>> we are a signature that ture to npt, a sincere cigna ture, we think nonproliferation is a benefit to iran and all of us. >> rose: would you like to see saudi arabia have the same kind of capability to produce a nuclear weapon, capability, if you decide to go that last des dance. >> we are an advocate of middle east free of nuclear weapon but in terms of developing nuclear technology for all other peaceful uses, we are even ready to share with them our capability >> rose: all oit. >> no problem, yeah. >> re: h clo areou, if you wanted to today, today to produce a nuclear weapon? an explosive device. how close are you if, in fact, you made that decision. >> well, professionally i cannot answer that rigorously. the only thing, because it depends on a lot of points. but i tell you personally that to build a bomb is not a big deal.
11:21 pm
i mean from the technological point of view. >> rose: having the material build a bomb say big deal. otherwise you wouldn't be engaged in this -- >> i mean, you see pakistan already has a bomb but-- . >> rose: many bombs. >> but their technology is far behind of ours. in nuclear sense, and to build a bomb with plutonium they use a-- reactor. but we are not-- we think the area of science and technology in this is so interesting. and i mean why we need a weapon at all? we are so strong in the region. we are capable to deter any imminent threat. why we need atomic bomb? it is-- . >> rose: that's a very good question. >> yeah w we don't need it. >> rose: okay. but dow need the ca passit ot do it you just said that. >> the capacity is national, when you get this strength strong, you can lift the
11:22 pm
heavyweight this is obvious. >> rose: i hear you clearly. >> yeah. >> rose: there is a report that the sanctions are having an impact on iran. the cost of food is up. inflation is up. it having a serious impact on the people of iran. its food that they want to buy costs a lot more because of these sanctions. >> well, even if this is true. >> it is true, isn't it. your own central banker said that. >> suppose this is true. why the united states will be interested in putting pressure on our people. why the language of threat is so interested. >> rose: because they believe that you have this-- as you know -- >> i done think so i think they know how technology is-- i think their worry in it is from somewhere else. >> rose: what is that worry, do you think. >> this is coming from the whole middle east area. american policy in middle
11:23 pm
east is stumbling, it's faing part. while their strategic allies are collapsing one after another they are afraid that iran is going for fishing in this area. iran is gaining. >> rose: okay, syria. you're supporting the government of bashar assad, correct? >> well this is very uncorrect reading of our position. we are supporting the movement of the middle east people toward democracy from day number one anywhere in the middle east rses. >> rose: and how would you describe the movement in syria. >> exactly. >> rose: exactly, how would you describe it, the movement for democracy. >> definitely. >> rose: and iit being put down by e syrian army? >> the whole complication of the problem is here. we are against impiecing, infiltrating and invigorating violence in all of these countries. unfortunately, i syria, in yemen, in bahrain the there
11:24 pm
is a tendency which from united states and allies to invigorate violence and incite violence. the violence will definitely dicalize this movement. >> rose: would you, by that definition dow mean supporting the rebels in libya which overthrew the government of colonel qaddafi s that inciting violence. >> no, support is one thing. but to enter into military-- is another one. >> rose: i'm asking a specific case. take libya, forxample. was that the wrongs policy, to supporthe rebels and prevent in the beginning a massacre inenghazi. >> the number of people has been killed, even with the support, may equal the same way if we let its people themselves. because later-- it was the rebels who won. if nato enter-- did not enter this game, i think their ability.
11:25 pm
>> rose: ty're not so sure build that. the rebels. >> well, you see, if the rebel, if you read them right now, definitely they are happy that somebody helped them. >> exactly. >> rose: . >>ut they are not happy with the way that she have been helped. >> they asked for the help. >> they did not ask for the nato to just come there and spread the-- over there. >> rose: they clearly asked for the support that they gotnd expressed gat appreciation for. it enabled them to overthrow what they considered to be -- >> it's may given speed to the movement but definitely the movement in these states should go by itself. >> rose: here's my question. and this is for debate. and you and i have a dialogue about it the arab spring was not about iran. it was not about the united states. it was not even about israel
11:26 pm
it was about a rising of people in an argument for dignity and an argument for freem and an argumen to change a government, clearly? do you agree with that? it wasn't about the united states it wasn't about rael it was not buy ran it was about their n aspirations from tunia to egypt, to syria, to libya. >> well, let's take egypt. rose: let's take he girpt. >> well, the first thing that the people of egypt they ask for it, to close in, and to cut the gas to that. so the op decision to the policies of previous regime with israel was very prominent. secondly, no you misread the point i think, with respect. the protest that began in tahrir square was not about
11:27 pm
israel. it really wasn't. i was there. it was about a yearning for dignity and a yearning for freedom and a yearning to control their own destiny. and to change a government that was receptive to that. >> well, you see, it is true, when you say it is not out, and this is-- we need the semantic, how we can-- how you can detach when the movement and even in the first day of it, if has shown sentiment against a foreign imposition about the relation wit israel, i ink at least, at least we can say this movement which is for the participation people in the political structure, they have various strong desire to change the policy with the israeli, even to change the wayf relations whh the previous regime had. >> rose: agreed, there i is-- conventional wisdom says that there will be a
11:28 pm
different relationship with israel and even a different kind of relationship with the united states than the previous regime had. >> but here's another conventional wisdom that iran is worse off because of that. because it was not about them. these were not, these were not the same kind of revolution that iran had. and very much they said they did not want that kind of revolution. >> why somebody should expect that, they want similar model should be done over there. it is an experience. the egyptian people, they should go through their own experience to create their own politics. but if somebody thinks that ese trends will be anti-islamic this is absolutely-- . >> rose: i don't think anybody thinks that at all. i think that there is a sense of pro-islamic, it's just that it will nobe -- thas good enough. >> rose: exactly. >> that's good enough.
11:29 pm
>> rose: it will not be pro iran. and are you saying you don't want it to be pro iran. you don't want it to be -- >> the meaning of pro is different from point of view of the united states and iran. pro-united states means they should be under the influence of the united states. pro-iran means we will be friend together. you learn from our experience. we learn from your experience. so it's quite different meaning. >> rose: agreed. i agree withful that. but how do you see the way these governments will be forming in terms of whether it's egypt or looking at what happened in tunesia, in terms-- what does this mean with respect to islam? >> i think at least the minimum thing that islam is revisingtsel it's coming to the life much more than before. islam is revived in the social life. so we are very happy to see in tunesia muslim brotherhood is gaining.
11:30 pm
we are not after they copy our way of government. but it's obvious islamic sentiment is coming up. i mean just lo to the collective prayer, mosques, at theomen's, the sentiment. this is what we wan to see. this is what we think t is a good gain for ourdeas. you want to see the egyptian people, their experience of building a society based on their culture, their experience. we do not think that models from iran or turkey or other places will work. but we are very much happy of the development in the region. and in syria, especially, we -- >> in syria, united states should not look after imposing somebody in syria. >> rose: they are not imposing anyone. they didn't impose anyone in libya.
11:31 pm
>> they kicked syria out of the arab league. countries, their record in democracy is dismal. how they y that we are so worried about democracy in syria. how we can read that? obviously this is not a case for the people. >> rose: there seems to be and there is a western impression, this person, that there was some difference between your president's response to syria and your supreme leader. >> well-- . >> rose: some difference in nuance, am right? >> no, no, i think we hav, the whole issue is something inside sirria. you see, in syria, if the movement gets allowed i think united states won't be hay. because over there, the muslim brotherhood is very strong. they are good -- >> in sia. >> in syria. >> rose: the united states has expressed its desire i think and made cleart would like to see the assad govementym. and so have many other
11:32 pm
countries. and that surround -- >> but your government has not. your government is one government that has not expressed a desire to see the assad government go. >> is united states happy if a government comes in syria again after bashar assad which is a a very good supporter of islamic jihad and hamas like we are, for example. definitely not. >> rose: no i probably would agree with that i think that is the point they would not be happy with a government that is supportive of hamas or hezbollah. they would probably not be -- >> so i would make the conclusion-- . >> rose: but i don't speak fothe government. i'm just citing my impression of the government. >> i think in my-- that the united states is looking to extract concessions from bashar assad rather than to top tell. >> rose: oh, i don't think so. but we can't setle that either. let me just goack,peak frankly about the economic circumstance of iran today, okay. >> okay. >> rose: how bad is it? >> well, the economic situation in iran is not
11:33 pm
worse than united states economic situation. but i mean, if you are asking me whether the-- . >> rose: your inflation is at 19%. >> wel >> rose: your inflation is at 19%. >> well, it is not-- if you want to get the answer to this question whether this sanctions hurt iran's economy, yes t has its effect. it's obvious. but if you think that this will bring our economy down, definitely not. definitely not. >> rose: dow fear an attack by the israelis? >> not at all. >> rose: you don't fear it, dow believe it might come? >> we don't believe it but we are ready for it. >> and what would you do if it comes? >> oh, we are very strong in defending ourselves. >> what would you do. >> well, it's very hard to say right now. >> wouldt put america at risk? even if i did not ow? >> well this is-- this is
11:34 pm
something that could-- to anybody. i mean does united stat and israel corporation we separate them? >> but there was even a report this week that suggested that -- >> i can make it i cannot swallow this idea that israel acts in the region and the united states is aware it is a humiliation for united states, and a stanch supporter for israel all the way and doing something so strange for the american interest. i cannot swallow that. but i don't know. >> rose: well there was a report this week that said israel would not necessarily come-- it would act on its own it would not necessarily consult with the united states on its own actions vis-a-vis iran. >> well, and the point for me, why thi warmongering is so interesting for the western communities.
11:35 pm
why they are so much playing on that? threatening everythingn the table, war, attacking. >> rose: but they are also interested in iran support of certain militia groups in iraq that are attacking american-- that attacked american sold evers where you gave them the mines that came and were attacking americans, came from iran. they were interested in that that is an aggressive action by iran. >> well, united states knows that american military in iraq and afghanistan was a-- their money is coming from-- ooz al quite sa not the issue in iraq as you know. >> oh, no, definitely. they have a very strong activity over there. i think money is-- . >> rose: what were the other militia groups you were supporting, not al qaeda but other militia groups are you supporting. >> our support. >> with these weapons. >> our support is solid for the maliki government. we are not doing anything to
11:36 pm
undermine this government. >> rose: it's a government that you like. >> well, it is a government that the iraqi people want. >> ros there is also ts idea wch i would be happy to have you express an opinion. that government, is not in any way under the influence of iran. because some people fear that government would be under your influence and they feel very strong and proud about that, that they are, in fact, not under iranian influence at all. >> this is absolutely true. >> i mean this mentality that if you have good relation with our country or you have some mutual influence, then you are under the influence. this is a mentality of importance as propagated by the united states. but we have fantasc relaon with them. they are not stooges of iran. we don't want any
11:37 pm
subordinate government that was there. our interest doesn't like-- that modality of relation. >> what is your interest of the recommendation on? >>h, let the-- and let democracy flour tish in the region. >> to more areas i want to cover with you, if i may. one is the idea wince mean the whole source of instability and tension is stemming from two spring-- one is israel. the other unitedtates adventures. >> the reason that tse countries have experienced revolution is not because of the relationship of those rulers with the united states it was because of overall policies of those rulers. and it's own impact on their own sense of freedom and dignity. >> well, let us make it like this. while the primary source of the incentive for this
11:38 pm
movement is the dictatorship which was over there, so the people want to have a more democratic structure this is -- >> exactly. >> but there are other things which definitely help the people to pour out. their discontent with the american policy in this country, their strong discontent for american support to israel, for this discontentnd humiliation in front of the-- so all of this, definitely is helng the peopl to move out more. even it will have an effect-- even it has an effect on the path that they are going through it is very important to notice that these movements will move in an environment which is not detached from the environment. it has quiet interaction within the environment so these are the sic parameters of the environment. how we can ignore them? >> lete just makene point with respe to
11:39 pm
bombing the sites. the secretary of defense, leon panetta said a strike on iran would have a serious impact on the middle east and american forces in the region without seriously disrupting, without seriously disrupting your own nuclear program. that came from the secretary of defense, suggesting at people ought to think very carefully on any strike against iran. that stands on its own, does it not? >> well, i think the second part is definitely correct. >> okay. i mean our capacityor capability, nuclear technology is not something that can be taken away from us. if the power plant is hit, we can build anoth one. if two scientists are assassinated there are ten others. >> the fact that you are a nuclear scientist had be assassinated. >> yeah. >> okay. with respect to, speaking of those kinds of things, there was as you know much controversy about a plot to
11:40 pm
kill the saudi ambassador to the united states. what you can tell us about that. >> i can tell you that this is very unfounded, number one. second, we did not get any information from the united, you will asked them, please tell us, some information that we can even help you who the hell these people were in doing that. no single piece of information, even the identity of people they claim here, they have dual citizenship. >> they had matrix to tehran, one of them? >> we don't know. even the identity av that person is not-- is not totally known to us. so united states we think wants to create another sphere of tension against them. and otherwise you should give some information. neither of the saudi nor the
11:41 pm
americans, they gave us a piece of information. i am afraid, our saudi brothers are themselves victims ofnother plots which is to make their relation, incite tension with iran. otherwise we don't understand that such a thing could happen and iran is not informed, even not given any piece of information. we have serious doubts about the authenticity of the whole game which had been given there, while the government is totally away from this kind of activity. >> the united states attorney general mr. holder said he took it seriously. >> well, i iup to the americans to take it seriously or not. but fr our point of view, we don't have the slightest idea what the whole thing is about. the slightest idea. they did not give us a
11:42 pm
single piece of information. what we got is from internet. i mean this is what the internet is available. this is as much as we have. and we ask that clearly from the united states, that give us information, even we can help you to identify if there i somebody doing that. >> and they have given you no information. >> not at all, no information. >> how does the united states communicate with your government. >> oh, very simple. >> ambassador to the u.n.. >> un and also the ambassador to swiss and tehran. >> rose: so there is communication back and forth. >> i. >> rose: as if tan 'tis communication. >> not fantastic, but moving. >> rose: what is going on with mr. ahmadinejad, your president and your retionship with your supreme leader who you advise >>hmadinejadyou know, i was a stanch supporter of ahmadinejad. >> rose: was? >> i was, yes. well, he's finishing his
11:43 pm
term. i think he should finish his term with dignity. when the president gets to the last year, everybody's attention will turn to other issues. >> rose: this is different than that, you know. there clearly t had to do with appointment of ministers and who was goi to be fired and who was not going to be fired it was an embarrassment to your president. >> well this is obvious that ahmadinejad is not a personal secretary. but to change the minister, even the united states thinks too much, it is true in iran. in iran power is shared. nobody is omnipotent. >> rose: supreme leader. >> everybody has his share in the constitution. so i am not disturbed about this thing. i think ahmadinejad is doing well. >> rose: you do. >> yeah. >> rose: you think he's doing well, does the supreme leader think he's doing well. >> well, generally doing well. >> rose: otherwise he wouldn't be there. because therwas even a
11:44 pm
talk that he might be impeached at some point. >> there was. we have a strong parliament. obviously they put -- >> your brother is the speaker of the parliament. >> that is true. so whi a strong particle suspect good. check and balance is needed in our society. you know, for the first time a minister was summoned to the parliament. and he apologised in front of a nation. he said, well, i didn't mistake. please forgive me. if you want to take me away, take it. otherwise i want to correct-- i mean this is fantastic. we regard from democracy. >> aren't there criminal charges against some of the close, one of the close advisors to your president? >> no, there are are charges about them for financial-- . >> rose: having to do with fraud. >> yes. but not criminal charge in the sense of being inside. >> rose: charged with fraud and corruption, was it not? >> yes, well-- that can be criminal.
11:45 pm
>> well -- >> people in the united ates go to prison and in china they go to prison. >> in iran as well. >> rose: i thought that you meant indulging in some activity against -- >> these are very close, this is a very close association of the pet. >> well, the charge is not right now, i mean proven in the court, yes, it has been-- about them. the nuddishary is following that. >> was this his chief of staff? >> chief of staff and another one is mr. bathar is a deputy. >> rose: these are people pretty close to the president. >> pretty close. i hope it will be cleared up. >> rose: you hope they will beound innent. >> yeah. >> rose: you do. >> yes. >> rose: you are a conservative. >> i am a conservative, yes. >> rose: and what is president ahmadinejad. >> well, he is from our flank of political wing. >> rose: how would you characterize mr. musabi. >> well, houseavi was mad
11:46 pm
call in the 10, 15 years of the beginning of the revolution. >> rose: radical meaning like you were radical or -- >> no, we were the moderate and they were radical. >> rose: he was to th the-- definitions are hard, you know. >> well, let me-- . >> rose: he was more of an extremist than you were. >> no, i mean quite different i deals, on the economical area, they were advocating government control and-- by the sector. in relation with the world we were advocating good relation even the western countries, they were totally against open relation with the west so we call them radical. >> i'm going go back to mr. ahmadinejad. tell me the relationship he has with the supreme leader. >> i think it's a good working relationsh. >> rose: dow really? >> yeah. a good working relation. you ow, i mean-- . >> rose: we're asking so -- >> i want to say that the expectation is that the
11:47 pm
government in the middle east should be like the emperor and kings. there should be an order, everhing should be obeyed. this is not true. we have a system. >> rose: in the united states the president is the commander in chief. in iran the president is not the command never chief of the armed forces. >> nay. >> rose:ational security and defense policy come within the purview of the supreme leader. you know that, better than i do. >> as i said, the power is shared over there. but the whole executive branch is under the president,. >> or the ministry or the money, everything. they have a strong-- . >> rose: if there was a conflict between the president and supreme leader who would win? >> well, we have a system over there. we should avoid to-- design to avoid filibuster. we have the exconsigliere expediency, a report and then it will be decided. yes, i mean-- .
11:48 pm
>> rose: you have got a parliamentary election coming up. >> yes t is coming up it is fantastic and very hot election. >> rose: really. >> yeah. >> rose: and are you worried that your side may lose? >> well, let me reveal my heart, yes, i'm a bit worried that we lose the majority that we are. we are hold being 160 so of seats from 290. which say good majority. i will be very happy to kee this number in next election. >> rose: so you are losing favor with the people of iran. >> well, you know, iranian flavor is very mplicated, even for us politician. >> rose: i can raise a serious issue, i trace every time wh you, and with others too. because it felt so deeply here it is the question of human rights. there is, you know, questions of abdul fatah sultani and otrs, what happens the time of the
11:49 pm
protest. there are people that are in prison there that many people outside of iran believe are political prisoners. i don't have to go through chapter and verse. wh is your-- why dow do it? >> well, i mean protest is protest. i mean if a country-- . >> rose: that's one thing but putting people in-- fear of their life is something else, especially if you have the power of the government. >> well, i mean, if they insight to violence, definitely they will be followedy law. and ey should obey e la even if they want to do the process. and this is the key issue. even key issue in here. >> mr. mousavi are under virtual house arrest, are they not. these are people who ran for, one mayor and oneresident of the country. >> well. >> rose: and they own under house arrest. >> this is a sad story that these two politicians in their normal political
11:50 pm
activity at one moment they decided to ask the people to do violence. and this is the great mistake of these two close friends of mine. but they committed, you know n democracy -- >> so you were you know -- you said they were close friends of yours. >> oh, yeah, definitely. we worked together for years. so if you don't agree with the result of the polling, you cannot decide that in the middle of the street. this is-- law. >> so the great crime as you see it, mistake that they committed was to say that the election was unfair and call on their people to be into the streets to protest it. >> no. >> rose: what's wrong with the idea of protesting an election. >> protest is not, but to ask them to do violence, to ask them not to go to home unless the whole thing is toppled, we told them very frankly that look, election is election. sometimes one side is not
11:51 pm
content with it. there are legal mechanisms. no law is perfect. but in democracy even if you don't agree with it, even i cited the example of george bushirst election. i said look, the united states for two months the result of the ection was unclear. >> rose: unclear it was finally settled by the supreme court. >> and al gore came, he was not happy. he was considered himself the real winner. >> rose: people who protested that election were not put in jail. th were not tortured. >> the reason was-- no, torture is-- . >> rose: that is another issue but-- those allegations are there as well. >> al gore did not ask the people to come to the street, burn the banks an close windows. he left it to the supreme court. >> re: are you saying mr. mousavi asd tm to burn banks. >> well, he incited the violence, foolishly. he never asked his people not do it. he-- i mean why not legal system. >> rose: why is mr. sultani
11:52 pm
imprisoned. >> fatah sultani this is the court, he got indictment in the court. extly with the same argument as i said. he was involved. in incitement, against violence and secret of the state. he is a goodlawyer haveespeor himery much. but io not agree with what he did. but the indictment of the court is another thing. m not going to say that if i was a judge i was ruling the same this is ather issue. >> now i'm going to quote this to you and we'll turn to one final subject. ahmed shaheed for human rights in iran filed his final -- his first report to the general assembly, u.n. general assembly revealg a pattern of systemic, a systemic violations of fundamental man rits in iran. >> well,-- . >> rose: a pattern of systemic violationf fundamental human rights.
11:53 pm
>> well, i am not sure he rushed to a kind of py and paste report. he never did any study. i mean allegation about iran is 1,000 of that or 200,000. he can produce it on the virtual space very easily. what kind of investigation is done, none. so he copy and paits the previous reports. fortately, h get very bad mark, professionally, in producing this report. he's opened to professional report. buthis is not professional, but this is good for making this resolution against us which is pushed by united states more sound. this is only for that use. it doesn't have a single value terms of professionality. >> rose: will your brother run for president? >> i am encouraging him. this i can say, yeah. >> rose: family stks
11:54 pm
together, dohey. wel it is t only family, so we consider him very competent. >> rose: and how will iran be different if he's the president? >> well, i think he n-- well, each president brought his contribution to iran's development. i think es slogan will be more efficiency, more moderation. >> rose: more moderation. >> moderation, yes. >> rose: and the other brother is what now. >> he is the head of judiary. >> rose: isn't this tomuch por inne family? >> well, i think this is not a power which is coming from the family ancest ree this is the confidence of the people. they can take it away any time they want. i was for years member of the parliament. >> rose: i know you were. y decided not to be the people. i just said okay, i will do my service in other job.
11:55 pm
>> rose: if i came t iran could i interview anybody that i wanted to. >> oh, definitely. >> rose: m mousa, the supreme leader. >> everybody. >> rose: you'll help me interview the supreme leader. >> obviously, obviously. you are welcome, yes. >> rose: thank you for coming. >> thank you very much. >> rose: pleasure to you have on the broadcast again. >> thank you.
11:56 pm
rose: funding for charlie rose has been provided by the coca-cola company, supporting this program since 20023. and march express. additional funding provided by these funders.
11:57 pm
11:58 pm
11:59 pm


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on